DeadheadForPaul
11-05-2014, 10:54 AM
I wanted to do an experiment to see what the average voter sees in an election, so during the past 19 months leading up to the midterms, I completely cut myself off from this forum, the networks (CNN, Fox, etc.). I have always been someone who follows politics closely and knows every policy position and every controversy. I got to experience this election like a normal uninformed voter
The casual independent voters tend to make the difference between winners and losers in most elections, so I experienced the Midterms like one of them
Here is what I learned:
1.) Knowledge of issues: I knew very little about the political positions of the senate and gubernatorial candidates in my state. I actually could not tell you one policy position of either of them after talking to neighbors and watching commercials during my regular tv shows. The Dems would just talk about progress or vague "jobs" promises. Republicans seem to focus on "that guy is with Obama and Obama is bad". Honestly, commercials did little to convince me because it just felt like repetitive bickering which made me hate both candidates. Money spent on commercials is important to counter the opponent but I don't think it tips the scales unless there's a really effective commercial. Name recognition is the biggest plus in a national election. I think Rand will get the funding but I'm not too worried about being outspent if we are unless negative commercials are well done.
2.) Influence: The biggest influence seemed to be word of mouth by people you interact with. People would give positive or negative impressions of a candidate but never gave specifics. A lot of the negative things about candidates seemed to be about their personalities more than anything. This bodes well for Rand because he comes off as very likable as opposed to someone more abrasive like Chris Christie. Is it someone you'd want to have a beer with? Rand being an independent voice might break through the bickering as "something different"
3.) Boots on the ground work: I felt in the dark on the two politicians. If someone had met me at a state fair or out in the park and explained some stuff about a candidate, that would have swayed me and allowed me to see tangible support for a person. Putting a face to a political movement works
4.) Face time and name recognition is huge: neither one of the politicians here made any huge efforts to show up on local news or at events for the general public. Signs work good for name recognition but only get you in the game. To win the game, you have to get the candidate out there, and Rand is out there on nearly every channel and in 30 states! It reminds me of how he won KY by just going out early and doing hard work on the ground
I heard from one of my colleagues at work today (doesn't know I'm a Rand fan) that 'the only politician in Washington who is going to do anything will be Rand Paul". THAT IS HUGE. He is not someone I'd necessarily assume would be on Team Rand as he falls in the dedicated evangelical camp and has a big focus on ISIS and Israel. That shows that Rand's focus on the debt, small government, and reaching out to Christians is working
I think Rand has a legit shot at this one, and I say that as someone who is a big pessimist
The casual independent voters tend to make the difference between winners and losers in most elections, so I experienced the Midterms like one of them
Here is what I learned:
1.) Knowledge of issues: I knew very little about the political positions of the senate and gubernatorial candidates in my state. I actually could not tell you one policy position of either of them after talking to neighbors and watching commercials during my regular tv shows. The Dems would just talk about progress or vague "jobs" promises. Republicans seem to focus on "that guy is with Obama and Obama is bad". Honestly, commercials did little to convince me because it just felt like repetitive bickering which made me hate both candidates. Money spent on commercials is important to counter the opponent but I don't think it tips the scales unless there's a really effective commercial. Name recognition is the biggest plus in a national election. I think Rand will get the funding but I'm not too worried about being outspent if we are unless negative commercials are well done.
2.) Influence: The biggest influence seemed to be word of mouth by people you interact with. People would give positive or negative impressions of a candidate but never gave specifics. A lot of the negative things about candidates seemed to be about their personalities more than anything. This bodes well for Rand because he comes off as very likable as opposed to someone more abrasive like Chris Christie. Is it someone you'd want to have a beer with? Rand being an independent voice might break through the bickering as "something different"
3.) Boots on the ground work: I felt in the dark on the two politicians. If someone had met me at a state fair or out in the park and explained some stuff about a candidate, that would have swayed me and allowed me to see tangible support for a person. Putting a face to a political movement works
4.) Face time and name recognition is huge: neither one of the politicians here made any huge efforts to show up on local news or at events for the general public. Signs work good for name recognition but only get you in the game. To win the game, you have to get the candidate out there, and Rand is out there on nearly every channel and in 30 states! It reminds me of how he won KY by just going out early and doing hard work on the ground
I heard from one of my colleagues at work today (doesn't know I'm a Rand fan) that 'the only politician in Washington who is going to do anything will be Rand Paul". THAT IS HUGE. He is not someone I'd necessarily assume would be on Team Rand as he falls in the dedicated evangelical camp and has a big focus on ISIS and Israel. That shows that Rand's focus on the debt, small government, and reaching out to Christians is working
I think Rand has a legit shot at this one, and I say that as someone who is a big pessimist